Changes to immigration rules announced by Starmer

Or he was simply justifying the Rwanda scheme or not on top of his brief.

Nick Timothy MP 2023
'in the last year we were able to use the Dublin Regulation, as this rule is called, only 105 out of more than 8,500 requests by Britain were granted – just 1.2 per cent of the total'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/05/rishi-can-stop-illegal-immigration-keeps-european-court-quiet/

Sky News are also reporting that a plan to deal with asylum seekers was not conceived until 16 months after December 2020 (mid 2022) - however plans were revealed in early 2021 and similar offshore plans in 2020 - before we signed the Brexit trade deal:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/priti-patel-offshore-denmark-refugees-asylum-rwanda-africa-b942912.html
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/28/home-office-proposals-due-on-sending-asylum-seekers-abroad
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/30/revealed-no-10-explores-sending-asylum-seekers-to-moldova-morocco-and-papua-new-guinea

If you're referring to me, you make a lot of assumptions.

Ha ha Chris Philp - Shadow HS - now telling a private meeting of Tory supporters that leaving the EU has hindered returning migrants, as we are out of the Dublin agreement... apparently over half x channel migrants claimed asylum in a EU country so could have been returned under Dublin.

Another Tory fuck up!!

Ah. So you choose not to see. It's certainly easier to say "oh that's stereotypes" than to try to help women in that situation.

I live in an area with over 40% Muslims and work in the community.

You say this because you don't live in an area that is predominantly Bangladeshi, or because you do not observe or are too afraid to voice what you see. You don't think there is a domestic violence problem for the women, for example? Is this because you don't.know or don't care to know?

I appreciate the thorough response. I also understand that rules aren't personal, but they do have real effects on real people. I often visit the UK visa subreddit, and it sucks to read about situations like a parent not being able to attend their child's graduation because the immigration office doesn't believe they'll return home.

My EUSS application was rejected because I didn't have proof that he was added to my insurance. Where I'm from, that's not even a thing. They don't ask for extra documentation, and they'd rather deny the application and make you apply and pay again. Or like when my friend got a letter about her pending deportation, and the immigration office later said it was a human error.
One British friend of mine wants to move back to take care of his mother, but he can’t bring his wife with him. So they’ve decided to stay abroad and continue teaching at an international school.

None of this really matters on a government level. It's all just numbers. A few Brits unable to come back, a few families split, a few couples divorcing, and it's no big deal in the bigger picture. I get that. But on a personal level, I still wish the system were different and they had an alternative way to fight the issues. But this is just a personal rant. Same in many other countries.

I also think some of this is just for show. For example, when the income requirement for UK citizen family visas was raised a while ago, it felt more like a publicity stunt, a way to say “look, we’re doing something,” even though that group wasn’t really the main issue.

Personally, I think the UK made a mistake years ago by having looser immigration rules for EU citizens compared to other EU countries. In several, maybe even most, EU nations, EU citizens can stay for three months, but then they must register and show they have grounds for residency. Who knows, maybe some of this could have been avoided.

Ultimately however, it’s not about work and a culture buzz or diversity which are about the society. If you actually move to the UK not for say professional experience or an ex pat life but with the intention of citizenship then yes this is hard news (though comparable economies do this). However, retrospective changes to immigration law have been upheld by the courts.

If I am not wrong, OP, I think you could stay as the spouse of a British citizen. Surely it would be cruel for you to be separated. Isn't the spouse visa exempt?

I believe from the Reddit board that one visa change which they tried to make retrospective was struck down by the courts. Not exactly sure which one.

The comparable countries bit; not sure if this is true. I work with Americans, Scandinavians, Spaniards, Singaporeans... all of whom could have a better life in their home country perhaps. But they like the buzz and culture of London- who doesn't?- and see themselves as contributors.

I don’t mind this, and agree on borders I prefer the Aus approach. But I absolutely see the pp on not chasing off high earners. Which Labour seem intent on doing.

It may shock you to know that the UK has changed its immigration rules on dozens of occasions in last decade. The majority of these changes did not apply to professional visas but they were often retrospective and this is lawful. A lot of people can find themselves in a different position than when they arrived in the UK.

What do you mean if you’re from a comparable country you won’t care that much?

This seems blind to how people behave. Do you know Gov advisors who think this way?

Here's the link to the BBC article. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c249ndrrd7vo

I am a high taxpayer, but I don't know if I have contributed enough. Not in the medical field.

PP who made a comparison to Japan, I have lived and worked there too, years ago. The difference is the rules are clear from the start. Nobody is lured into thinking they can make a home in Tokyo, unless they speak fluent Japanese. London has set out its stall differently, as a global, multicultural city that welcomes diversity.

This kind of rhetoric is only going to make the global skilled flee. You can afford to flip and flop on immigration if you are Dubai with a low tax rate ( Not that I ever want to live there. ). Not if you are the UK.

The Labour voting electorate will get what they wanted. Trouble is they’ll impact the rest of us.

I think the OP may not be all that worried about it. These measures will sting professionals who want to make the UK a permanent home. I’d say if you were a national already of say an EU state or economy of comparable economic development you might not won’t care that much.

It depends where your talent comes from. If the UK makes deals for professionals via trade deals, it can allow much shorter term access, and grow its own talent from its graduates.

Thie isn’t wicked. It’s what other countries do.

Anyway the BBC has reported that the rules will be applied retroactively to those already in the country, including those with ILRs.

So any recent migrant- including high earning, tax paying, English speaking, fullly integrating migrants- will be affected. That includes you, OP, I guess.

The UK is mad if it thinks this sends a good message to global talent. What it sends is the message: we will invite you in to do a job that a British person could not do, shake you down for visas, make you pay 40% tax and a whopping NHS surcharge, then change the rules on you just as you approach ILR. Take it or fuck off. We can't get our young people into work, so you pay the bills.

Then 4 years later, when everyone has fucked off, Starmer will be raising taxes to pay for it all.

I love how you think British professionals should migrate to Australia but not the other way around.

Well agree! These universities have good lobbyists in government. No one is absconding from the Russell Group are they. The University of East Togmodern perhaps